^There was a White Christian Britisher who just killed someone violently with knife, machette, stabbing brutally someone over 15 times in public. Yet he is not a terrorist. Double bias. Anyways Islam is growing in the UK and that's despite the animosity and islamophobic garbage of the media.

The article is still there. Just do a search for Dale Pipe axe.

Where is the part that about him being a Christian? Was that in another article?

I'm pissed off with the Black dude who killed that soldier. If i wAs so hell bent in killing people and expecting to go to jail for ever,i would of got a machine gun and mowed down hundreds of British soldiers.The soldier was a terrorist who killed muslims in Afghanistan so he was a fair target.If he was killed in Afghanistan we would of said it's part of war,so why can't the Muslims kill him in his home town.He is a legitimate target and don't feel any shame on him dying.

I'm pissed off with the Black dude who killed that soldier. If i wAs so hell bent in killing people and expecting to go to jail for ever,i would of got a machine gun and mowed down hundreds of British soldiers.The soldier was a terrorist who killed muslims in Afghanistan so he was a fair target.If he was killed in Afghanistan we would of said it's part of war,so why can't the Muslims kill him in his home town.He is a legitimate target and don't feel any shame on him dying.

Your a freak! Using your own logic you would be more than happy for me to go and kill Muslims in my community, since were at war with them. I mean why bother travelling to Afghanistan, I can get the job done here. I mean if they were killed in Afghanistan, they would just say it's part of war, so why can't Westerners kill Muslims at home here.

Your a freak! Using your own logic you would be more than happy for me to go and kill Muslims in my community, since were at war with them. I mean why bother travelling to Afghanistan, I can get the job done here. I mean if they were killed in Afghanistan, they would just say it's part of war, so why can't Westerners kill Muslims at home here.

All u do is rant and talk.Then why don't u do it?

The soldier is a legitimate target,my neighbour who is a non muslim who doesn't kill muslims is not a target and should not be harmed.

The soldier is a legitimate target,my neighbour who is a non muslim who doesn't kill muslims is not a target and should not be harmed.

You are more violent than the Muslims u rant about.

I don't commit terrorist acts, because I am not a terrorist. I was using your twisted logic to prove a point. But It does surprise me that Muslims receive little real blow-back. If Westerners were to use the tactics of the Muslim terrorists shit would get real ugly real quick. I guess the majority of westerners aren't prepared to lower themselves to the depths that Muslim scumbags are. Trust Muslims to lower the bar on decency as low as it can go. The soldier is only a legitimate target while he is in a warzone. When he is home and walking in public he is a civilian. And you have the gall to call me violent, you're the one suggesting that terrorist acts are perfectly acceptable by presenting some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. You're a disgrace.

You are suggesting that a Soldier is the enemy of Muslims wherever he resides, so it goes that Muslims are enemies wherever they reside. By your logic a Muslim living in an enemy Country is just as viable a target as a soldier living in his homeland. This is why the Americans placed all the Japanese in concentration camps during World War 2. They couldn't take the chance that the home grown Japanese wouldn't become enemies of the State. Sadly we have weak Governance these days.

Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'? by Glenn GreenwaldWhat definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight". Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"?

When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism".

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?

I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being "terrorism": indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as "terrorism". To question whether something qualifies as "terrorism" is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn't.

The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

One last point: in the wake of the Boston Marathon attacks, I documented that the perpetrators of virtually every recent attempted and successful "terrorist" attack against the west cited as their motive the continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians. It's certainly true that Islam plays an important role in making these individuals willing to fight and die for this perceived just cause (just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and nationalism lead some people to be willing to fight and die for their cause). But the proximate cause of these attacks are plainly political grievances: namely, the belief that engaging in violence against aggressive western nations is the only way to deter and/or avenge western violence that kills Muslim civilians.

Add the London knife attack on this soldier to that growing list. One of the perpetrators said on camera that "the only reason we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and "we apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." As I've endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn't remotely justify the acts. But it should make it anything other than surprising. On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way:

I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"

Basic human nature simply does not allow you to cheer on your government as it carries out massive violence in multiple countries around the world and then have you be completely immune from having that violence returned.

Drone admissions

In not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill - whose soon-to-be-released film "Dirty Wars" examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission, it "leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen". Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for "Dirty Wars", which I reviewed a few weeks ago here:

Note

The headline briefly referred to the attack as a "machete killing", which is how initial reports described it, but the word "machete" was deleted to reflect uncertainty over the exact type of knife use. As the first paragraph now indicates, the weapon appeared to be some sort of meat cleaver.

UPDATE

In the Guardian today, former British soldier Joe Glenton, who served in the war in Afghanistan, writes under the headline "Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role". He explains:

"While nothing can justify the savage killing in Woolwich yesterday of a man since confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, it should not be hard to explain why the murder happened. . . . It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between."

This is one of those points so glaringly obvious that it is difficult to believe that it has to be repeated.

I don't commit terrorist acts, because I am not a terrorist. I was using your twisted logic to prove a point. But It does surprise me that Muslims receive little real blow-back. If Westerners were to use the tactics of the Muslim terrorists shit would get real ugly real quick. I guess the majority of westerners aren't prepared to lower themselves to the depths that Muslim scumbags are. Trust Muslims to lower the bar on decency as low as it can go. The soldier is only a legitimate target while he is in a warzone. When he is home and walking in public he is a civilian. And you have the gall to call me violent, you're the one suggesting that terrorist acts are perfectly acceptable by presenting some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. You're a disgrace.

You are suggesting that a Soldier is the enemy of Muslims wherever he resides, so it goes that Muslims are enemies wherever they reside. By your logic a Muslim living in an enemy Country is just as viable a target as a soldier living in his homeland. This is why the Americans placed all the Japanese in concentration camps during World War 2. They couldn't take the chance that the home grown Japanese wouldn't become enemies of the State. Sadly we have weak Governance these days.

When palestinians killed a few jews at the munich olympics in 1972, mossad hunted the perpretators even when it took them years and they went to every globe to hunt them down.

Same should go with the muslims who are attacked.If my dad or brother was killed dirty soldier or my house bombed back the stone ages or my mum or sister raped by these fungal soldiers, i would move heaven and earth and would hunt down the perpertrators no matter what country they were in.

This soldier was a muslim killer and was wearing clothing describing Muslim-killers as 'heroes'. Obviously a sick and demented individual.

Guys create another thread and stop polluting it with political garbage seriously

Sorry ahmed, back on track

Meet the ex-Hindu who converted 108,000 people to Islam

MATLI: Such are Deen Mohammad Shaikh’s powers of persuasion that he has converted 108,000 people to Islam since 1989, the year he left his birth religion Hinduism behind.

His multi-coloured business card describes the Matli dweller as the president of the Jamia Masjid Allah Wali and Madrassa Aisha Taleem-ul Quran – an institute for conversions to Islam.

The reedy 70-year-old brandishes an embellished cane. A red-and-white keffeiyah perched on his shoulder offers people a hint to his theological leanings.

As he speaks to The Express Tribune, his arm slices an invisible arc through the air. He is gesturing to a vast expanse of nine acres of donated land where converts are invited to pitch a tent and stay. “My heartfelt wish is that the entire world becomes Muslim,” comes his response, when asked about the en masse conversions. His piety is matched only by its ambition.

But contrary to the grandiose proclamation, this preacher isn’t a repository of rehearsed sound bites. It is only after he settles down on a charpoy that he deigns to embark on the journey of a Hindu named Jhangli who became an expert in evangelism.

“I always loved Islam,” he begins. “I read the Holy Quran and realised that 360 gods were not of any use to me.”

At first he had to study the Holy Quran in secret. There was the risk of being misunderstood if a Muslim caught him with the holy book. He started fasting and in fact he would begin a day before Ramazan started.

Shaikh’s mother grew alarmed at her son’s forays into another faith. She thought that if she married him off, he would not ‘leave’. Thus, he was barely 15 when his wedding took place, followed by a quick overtaking by nature – four girls and eight boys.

But despite this, he was drawn back to his curiosity and managed to find a teacher, Sain Mohammad Jagsi, who instructed him in the Holy Quran and Hadiths or sayings of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

Fortunately, Shaikh’s uncle was of the same mind and the two men agreed that they would give each other the strength. Shaikh held off until his daughter was married to a Hindu as planned, since he had already “given his word”. Then there was no turning back.

After his conversion, Deen Mohammad Shaikh made it his mission to woo others. He began in his own backyard, preaching to family, before venturing beyond this comfort zone. Encounters with the rich and powerful helped pave the way. Retired Pakistan Army general Sikandar Hayat, who owns a sugar mill in Matli, offered Shaikh money, which he turned down. Instead, he urged Hayat to give jobs to some of the new converts. Hayat and his daughter proved extremely helpful in providing assistance.

Now, Shaikh says, his fame has spread and people come to him from as far as Balochistan, members of all religions and sects, who would like to convert. A small mosque has sprung up in his residential compound along with a number of rooms where children – mostly girls – are taught how to say their prayers and recite the Holy Quran.

One of the teachers is 14-year-old Sakina, who is just 15 days into the job. “Only a few students are difficult to teach,” she says while commenting on their ability to recite a text in an unknown language.

Shaikh is aware of the difficulties converts face while taking on what appear to be the initially daunting rigours of a brand new system. He makes life easy for the first 40 days. “They only have to pray farz!” he says while referring to the mandatory parts. This relaxed schedule ensures that they can ‘confirm their faith’. He understands that if he demanded they start out with praying five times a day to offer even the optional and ‘bonus’ parts, “They would run away!” as he puts it with a look of mock horror on his face.

Other than this, he is reluctant to actually explain how he influences the people. All he offers is a nugget of fire and brimstone: “I tell them that I was a Hindu too and that they would burn in Hell if they are not Muslim.”

More than saving a soul

There are other practical considerations that accompany conversions. In order to ‘save’ the converts from influential Hindus in other districts, Shaikh packs them off to Hub Chowk while the Kalima is still moist on their lips. “Their families would beat them up (for converting) otherwise,” he explains.

This trick of the ‘trade’ he learnt from personal experience. He alleges that he was kidnapped along with his daughter-in-law by influential Hindus who threatened him so that he would stop converting people. “They don’t want these poor Hindus to stand up to them when they become Muslims,” Shaikh maintains.

Despite 108,000 conversions, for which a record is kept, Shaikh still doesn’t feel his work is done. He wants everyone to be a Muslim and learn from his example. He also attends the Tablighi Jamaat’s annual congregation in Raiwind, although he doesn’t believe in sectarian divisions. “All groups are like brothers to me,” he declares.

The writer of that article lacks the basic knowledge about psychology (or is it simply manipulation? ). You can inspire someone, but you can't 'convert' someone. In case someone is forced, there's still no 'conversion'.

The writer of that article lacks the basic knowledge about psychology (or is it simply manipulation? ). You can inspire someone, but you can't 'convert' someone. In case someone is forced, there's still no 'conversion'.

Some folks are so obsessed by religions/politics, that I wonder if they have a social life or even lift.

Just read an awesome article about how Gandhi fucked the Hindus in India and empowered the Muslims. His non-violence philosophy was seen as a weakness to exploit by the Muslims which they did successfully. Gandhi's beliefs actually led to a lot of violence. Gandhi even considered Hitler a friend (talk about gullible) and criticised the few Jews who fought to save their lives. He suggested that the Jews should be willingly slaughtered. Gandhi was a fruitcake, and was a Muslim apologist who was responsible for much Hindu suffering. (that's why he was murdered eventually by a Hindu). He even suggested Britain give up arms and oppose Hitler with spiritual force. (Oh Brother!)

Gandhi Quote:"Even if Muslims decide to wipe out the Hindu race, there is no point in Hindus getting angry on Muslims. Even if they slit our throats, we should be patient and accept death. Let them rule the world, we will pervade the world and merge with it. At least we should not be afraid of death."

Can't u read.THis is the religious discussion section.So there are people like us who are obsessed with politics and religion and we are in the right section.if you don't like it then take a hike.

I can read very well, thanks, but why is it that most of you guys only start/join politic/religious threads with only one agenda point: Muslims Why not start a debate about environmental, health or education issues?

A fake photograph of Tibetan monks standing in front of a pile of dead bodies appeared in many websites in the Muslim countries, especially Pakistan. This photo of Tibetan monks was actually taken during their relief work in Kyegudo (Yushul), eastern Tibet, after a devastating earthquake hit the region on 14 April 2010. The Tibetan monks extended remarkable service in the rescue and relief operations at the time.

The only one faking anything is you e-fool. There is a genocide of muslims in burma. You praise their killings. You are a sick man.

As far as Ghandi goes:

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

You know you should know your fate. You are the modern example of Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab. They are like your role model.

A fake photograph of Tibetan monks standing in front of a pile of dead bodies appeared in many websites in the Muslim countries, especially Pakistan. This photo of Tibetan monks was actually taken during their relief work in Kyegudo (Yushul), eastern Tibet, after a devastating earthquake hit the region on 14 April 2010. The Tibetan monks extended remarkable service in the rescue and relief operations at the time.

NEVER TRUST A MUSLIM !!!

I've never seen that pic before.

Your good at manipulating and changing the wording on some of ahmeds pics that he posts so I wouldn't trust a pic u put up cause your a untrustworthy person.

Authorities in Myanmar's western Rakhine state have introduced a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families in an effort to ease tensions with the Rohingya's Buddhist neighbors after a spate of deadly sectarian violence, an official said Saturday.

Local officials said the new measure — part of a policy that will also ban polygamy — will be applied to two Rakhine townships that border Bangladesh and have the highest Muslim populations in the state. The townships, Buthidaung and Maundaw, are about 95% Muslim.

The measure was enacted a week ago after a government-appointed commission investigating the violence issued proposals to ease tensions, which included family planning programs to stem population growth among minority Muslims, said Rakhine state spokesman Win Myaing. The commission also recommended doubling the number of security forces in the volatile region.

"The population growth of Rohingya Muslims is 10 times higher than that of the Rakhine (Buddhists)," Win Myaing said. "Overpopulation is one of the causes of tension."

Sectarian violence in Myanmar first flared nearly a year ago in Rakhine state between the region's Rakhine Buddhists and Muslim Rohingya. Mobs of Buddhists armed with machetes razed thousands of Muslim homes, leaving hundreds of people dead and forcing 125,000 to flee, mostly Muslims.

Since the violence, religious unrest has morphed into a campaign against the country's Muslim communities in other regions.

Containing the strife has posed a serious challenge to President Thein Sein's reformist government as it attempts to institute political and economic liberalization after nearly half a century of harsh military rule. It has also tarnished the image of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been criticized for failing to speak out strongly in defense of the country's embattled Muslim community.

Win Myaing said authorities had not yet determined how the measures will be enforced, but the two-child policy will be mandatory in Buthidaung and Maundaw. The policy will not apply yet to other parts of Rakhine state, which have smaller Muslim populations.

"One factor that has fueled tensions between the Rakhine public and (Rohingya) populations relates to the sense of insecurity among many Rakhines stemming from the rapid population growth of the (Rohingya), which they view as a serious threat," the government-appointed commission said in a report issued last month.

Predominantly Buddhist Myanmar does not include the Rohingya as one of its 135 recognized ethnicities. It considers them to be illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and denies them citizenship. Bangladesh says the Rohingya have been living in Myanmar for centuries and should be recognized there as citizens.

Its awesome to see proof that buddhists in burma are violent as the article mentions,

"Sectarian violence in Myanmar first flared nearly a year ago in Rakhine state between the region's Rakhine Buddhists and Muslim Rohingya. Mobs of Buddhists armed with machetes razed thousands of Muslim homes, leaving hundreds of people dead and forcing 125,000 to flee, mostly Muslims"

It must be disappointing to see that not only are buddhist violent, but also have trouble in the bedroom.

And 1-2 child limit has nothing to do with religion, china have a 1 child limit aswell.